Texas Pollution Apologist Weighs in on Kansas Coal Fight

Texas Pollution Apologist Weighs in on Kansas Coal Fight

With the final decision on the future of coal-fired power in Kansas now resting on a veto by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, the industry-friendly think tankers are pulling out some pretty desperate rhetoric.

Harnett White claims that she courageously made the decision to approve the first new coal-fired plant in Texas in 20 years because she was convinced that, “…equipped with groundbreaking emission controls [the new plant], was a net environmental benefit for Texas.”

Harnett White goes on to explain what strange logic one would require to come to the conclusion that a coal-fired generation plant can have a net environmental benefit:

“Lost in the outcry over carbon dioxide are these considerations:

CO2 represents only 5 percent of global greenhouse gas. CO2 added by human activity such as power plants constitutes only 3.4 percent of all CO2.

As predicted by the reigning science of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the risk of global warming from human-induced greenhouse gases such as CO2 is an uncertain, remote, gradual risk with impacts predicted in 100 years or more.”

I guess once you ignore the entire body of conventional science around human-induced global warming, it is quite easy to make the leap to coal plants having a net environmental benefit.

She [Harnett White] also makes misleading, unsupported assertions on science, claiming that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change portrays global warming as an 'uncertain, remote, gradual risk with impacts predicted in 100 years or more.' To the contrary, the panel’s study is unequivocal on the high risks of warming, the environmental damage already under way, and the urgency of controlling carbon and greenhouse gases now.”

And more to the point, the Dallas Morning Star penned a devastating editorial on Harnett White in July, 2007 that makes her strange net environmental benefit logic even more clear:

She [Harnett White] has been an apologist for polluters, consistently siding with business interests instead of protecting public health. Ms. White worked to set a low bar as she lobbied for lax ozone standards and pushed through an inadequate anti-pollution plan. She also voted to approve TXU's pollution-intensive Oak Grove coal units, ignoring evidence that emissions from the lignite plant could thwart North Texas' efforts to meet air quality standards.

With all that explained, the only question I have left is, why did any newspaper print such garbage in the first place?

Edit: Barton Paul Levenson pointed out that the above calculation only includes well-mixed greenhoue gases, and doesn’t take water vapour (which is about 3,900ppm) into account. But even then, the percentage of CO2 in greenhouse gases is still not 5%.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

The phrase “clean coal” has about as much merit as saying “sanitary sewage,” but that hasn’t stopped the industry and pro-coal talking heads from repeating that phrase ad nauseum to the American public.

The Orwellian industry buzzphrase was so successful that the Obama administration, as part of the 2009 stimulus package, pledged more than $1 billion to create the largest carbon-capturing system known as FutureGen 2.0. The...